4 ms·

Now either the grocery store or the consumer who uses the plastic bags have to pay for the pollution they cause. Except this pollution isn't really caused (the

Now either the grocery store or the consumer who uses the plastic bags have to pay for the pollution they cause. Except this pollution isn't really caused (the example being given over and over are bags blowing in the wind) if people dispose of them properly. That is no longer covering an externality, that is punishing the many for the careless actions of the few, something that is always immoral all of the time in my mind. Fine the litterbug companies and litterbug people, leave everyone else the hell alone.

dragontamer 11y ago
What about the buildup of microdebris in dumps? You throw away a plastic bag, which is 100% legal btw, you create a long-term effect. If you outlaw the disposal of plastic bags, how the hell do you enforce this regime? Do you hire a bunch of police officers to dig through people's garbage, and then fine people whenever they find a plastic-bag in the mix? I mean... yeah... I guess that's fair. But this is a very unrealistic system. From a practicality point of view, a $0.05 bag tax seems damn fair.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Does the nickel per bag have an appreciable impact on the environment? It's being floated as an anti-littering thing, so keep in mind the goalposts have already moved once. But if it does, that's fair enough. If not, it's just another "because we said so" tax with little basis in reality.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    > Does the nickel per bag have an appreciable impact on the environment? It's being floated as an anti-littering thing, so keep in mind the goalposts have already moved once. In my county, the nickle is a reminder. The program costs the stores a penny to run, and it costs like two or three pennies/bag to run the regulations (I guess the agents who go around store-to-store to make sure that everyone is in compliance). So the county is only getting like a penny/bag in profit out of this. With 10-million bags used per year, that's like $100,000 in taxes, which is barely a rounding error on the budget. The primary purpose is to remind people of the effects of pollution, not actually to create revenue. But its an effective means at curbing plastic-bag pollution at the source (people using fewer bags)
thinkcontext 11y ago
I doubt many would agree with your moral absolutism. Here in DC we have a $.05 charge on plastic bags. Some of that money goes to restoring the river which is choked with plastic (and other) waste. Plastic bag usage has dropped 80% since the bag tax was instituted. So, we got a great outcome (lessened externalities from litter) at minimal cost and inconvenience. Some of that is financial, less money (public and private) devoted to cleaning, less damage to public infrastructure (clogged sewers), less need to restore the river. An alternative approach DC could have taken to the bag litter problem would have been to increase the enforcement budget for littering. It would have been extremely expensive and its doubtful it would have cut down anywhere close to the amount of bag litter, so society would still bear the cost of the externality. Most people would not pick the latter alternative, and would consider the minimal costs imposed on innocents to be well worth the outcome. Moral absolutism over pragmatism can result in cutting off your nose to spite your face, in this case, continuing to bear the burden of the externality.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Pragmatism over morals leads directly to "end justifies the means" thinking. It's basically doing the wrong thing for the right reason, and what's worse, without that moral anchor, it's very easy to use the same excuse to do something just a little more annoying next time. The slippery slope might be a logical fallacy, but history points to it as the normal mode of operation for a government.
  - thinkcontext 11y ago
    In my example, there are two competing moral claims, those that bear the externality (and pay higher taxes and other costs) and those that pay the bag tax.

dragontamer 11y ago

What about the buildup of microdebris in dumps? You throw away a plastic bag, which is 100% legal btw, you create a long-term effect. If you outlaw the disposal of plastic bags, how the hell do you enforce this regime? Do you hire a bunch of police officers to dig through people's garbage, and then fine people whenever they find a plastic-bag in the mix? I mean... yeah... I guess that's fair. But this is a very unrealistic system. From a practicality point of view, a $0.05 bag tax seems damn fair.

Karunamon 11y ago
Does the nickel per bag have an appreciable impact on the environment? It's being floated as an anti-littering thing, so keep in mind the goalposts have already moved once. But if it does, that's fair enough. If not, it's just another "because we said so" tax with little basis in reality.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  > Does the nickel per bag have an appreciable impact on the environment? It's being floated as an anti-littering thing, so keep in mind the goalposts have already moved once. In my county, the nickle is a reminder. The program costs the stores a penny to run, and it costs like two or three pennies/bag to run the regulations (I guess the agents who go around store-to-store to make sure that everyone is in compliance). So the county is only getting like a penny/bag in profit out of this. With 10-million bags used per year, that's like $100,000 in taxes, which is barely a rounding error on the budget. The primary purpose is to remind people of the effects of pollution, not actually to create revenue. But its an effective means at curbing plastic-bag pollution at the source (people using fewer bags)

thinkcontext 11y ago

I doubt many would agree with your moral absolutism. Here in DC we have a $.05 charge on plastic bags. Some of that money goes to restoring the river which is choked with plastic (and other) waste. Plastic bag usage has dropped 80% since the bag tax was instituted. So, we got a great outcome (lessened externalities from litter) at minimal cost and inconvenience. Some of that is financial, less money (public and private) devoted to cleaning, less damage to public infrastructure (clogged sewers), less need to restore the river. An alternative approach DC could have taken to the bag litter problem would have been to increase the enforcement budget for littering. It would have been extremely expensive and its doubtful it would have cut down anywhere close to the amount of bag litter, so society would still bear the cost of the externality. Most people would not pick the latter alternative, and would consider the minimal costs imposed on innocents to be well worth the outcome. Moral absolutism over pragmatism can result in cutting off your nose to spite your face, in this case, continuing to bear the burden of the externality.

Karunamon 11y ago
Pragmatism over morals leads directly to "end justifies the means" thinking. It's basically doing the wrong thing for the right reason, and what's worse, without that moral anchor, it's very easy to use the same excuse to do something just a little more annoying next time. The slippery slope might be a logical fallacy, but history points to it as the normal mode of operation for a government.
- thinkcontext 11y ago
  In my example, there are two competing moral claims, those that bear the externality (and pay higher taxes and other costs) and those that pay the bag tax.